michaelwyres.com » Internet Happenings

Coalition Now Saying Fibre A Good Idea?

Michael Wyres — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:10:47 +0000

A curious tweet just now from opposition communications spokesperson, Malcolm Turnbull, in regards to “ultrafast” internet being launched by British Telecom.

Malcolm suggests in his tweet that this solution – (FTTC for most people, and FTTP for those who want it) – is better than the full FTTP network currently under construction by NBN Co.

Huh? What is FTTC?

“FTTC is subtly distinct from FTTN or FTTP (all are versions of Fiber in the Loop). The main difference is the placement of the cabinet. FTTC will be placed near the “curb” which differs from FTTN which is placed far from the customer and FTTP which is placed right at the serving location.”

So he’s praising a solution that runs fibre down every street, while bagging the NBN FTTP network, which runs fibre down every street?

Yes, it’s not exactly the same as an FTTP rollout, but given his love for his FTTN solution, why praise a solution that is almost exactly what he is normally against?

Non sequitur.

How Telcos Will Win on Building Towers

Michael Wyres — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:24:48 +0000

Almost immediately after posting my previous article in regards to the erection of communications towers for the National Broadband Network (NBN) or for mobile telephone and data communications through the major telcos, I remembered something that I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time.

Innovation – or more directly – innovation in how these towers are deployed.

Looking beyond the health risk purported by some – (which have been largely ruled out by numerous studies, including those conducted by the World Health Organisations (WHO)) – the main issue for most objectors has been their visual impact.

For some years, there has been a communications tower in the grounds of the Harvest Bible College, in Dandenong North, Victoria, alongside the Monash Freeway. Here is a picture of the tower, courtesy of Google StreetView – (click for a larger view):

Not exactly unsightly, right?

It is an example of the innovative outcomes that can be found if each side of the debate puts their brains together and comes up with an actual solution.

Food for thought in what will become an increasingly common argument as the wireless segments of the NBN rollout in coming years.

Some Common Sense in Telco Tower Debate

Michael Wyres — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:15:41 +0000

With rural areas around the Victorian city of Ballarat being included in the trials of the wireless component of the National Broadband Network, there has been much said about the erection of telecommunications towers around the region.

There’s even been uneven responses from within the same local governments.

Well, at least there has been some sanity in the region about the towers:

“A TELECOMMUNICATIONS tower will be erected in Learmonth, despite six objections.”

“Councillors argued Learmonth was currently a communications black spot and needed the 35-metre tower to improve its mobile and wireless broadband coverage.”

I do understand that some people do object to these towers, and in a democratic society that right to object is fundamental.

But if you want to improve rural outcomes – (and Learmonth is a lovely little town) – you do have to improve services of all kinds in those rural localities. Including telecommunications.

Most of all, the comments from the locals are telling – (mind the spelling errors, these were copied verbatim):

“This is excellent news and we couldn’t be happier here in Learmouth. The Mobile, and other receptions here at Learmonth, are fairly ordinary. I knew of quite a few residents, who can’t get a Mobile phone reception at all. I know a few of the ones that are objecting to it we are quite amused, that the tower will be no where near their property.. Get with the times Crs Mcintosh, and Phillips, we are fed up with poor quality internet wei would prefer this any day than what was proposed, a couple of years a go the stinking Saleyards and Abattoirs.”

“Being a local to the lovely and historically significant Learmonth area, I fully support the erecting of the tower. ‘Serial complainers’ need to get a life!”

“Thank goodness common sense prevailed. Learmonth has very poor mobile phone signals, if any at all, and our internet is very slow at peek times. This will be our one shot at catching up with the rest of the world, so let’s take it. To those that complain about these towers being erected, perhaps you were unlucky you weren’t born in the stone age. Perhaps in the next lifetime you will be more lucky. Councillors McIntosh and Philips should do their home work as the tower will not be near any homes. I can’t bloody wait.”

While this tower in Learmonth doesn’t seem to be an NBN tower, with the noise being made around the region about them, perhaps looking at the Learmonth example – where common sense seems to be prevailing – would be more productive.

One does hope so.

There is nothing wrong with leading the world, and modern telecommunications is a key factor.

Do it for your children and grand children – they are the ones who’ll suffer in a broadband backwater if we don’t do it right.

NBN: Want A Clue As To When Your Area Comes Online?

Michael Wyres — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:26:11 +0000

While we patiently await the first three-year rollout plan for the National Broadband Network (NBN) to be released in coming weeks, I have stumbled across a document on the NBN website that has apparently been around since October, but which I haven’t seen before.

Maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough?

Doesn’t matter.

It is an interesting document that details the rollout plan for the NBN’s Points of Interconnect (POIs).

Not the fibre – just the infrastructure the fibre ultimately connects to. It makes interesting reading, particularly if you understand a bit about networking and project planning.

It details approximate dates that access seekers – (ie: Retail Service Providers (RSPs)) – will be given access to almost complete POIs, so they can be ready to switch customers on when the POI is commissioned, seemingly only a few weeks later.

Obviously, POIs to service the already announced fibre rollout sites are high on the list – (as these need to be completed first) – however the interesting part is the POIs that are listed that are not associated with announced fibre rollout sites.

Now, don’t get too excited just yet if you are dying to have your slice of NBN action, as I must point out that POIs will have to be ready for fibre rollouts in greenfields estates that are not built by NBN Co, but become owned by NBN Co after commissioning in those estates.

Logically however, if a POI is built in an area on a schedule primarily for greenfields estates in that area, the mere existence of the POI in that area must make it far more likely that NBN Co will look at those areas favourably when planning schedules for the brownfields rollout in those areas.

Again – don’t forget – just because your area is high up on this list, doesn’t mean mass brownfields rollout in your area is imminent.

However, if your area is not high up on this list, I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest you will probably be waiting a little longer than the areas higher on the list.

As for what it means for your area, you can make of this what you will.

(UPDATE 20/01/2012 10:23): For those who have asked – (and there’s been a few of you) – the double asterisk against some POI sites listed in this document indicate POIs that will be built as brand new facilities by NBN Co, rather than inside an existing Telstra exchange. Also, despite Queanbeyan being in NSW but the POI there being listed as serving the ACT, it will primarily be serving the ACT, so this is not an error. Thanks to Brad Sprigg for the information via the ACCC website.

Moorabool Council Double Standard on NBN Towers

Michael Wyres — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:40:08 +0000

With construction of the wireless component of the National Broadband Network (NBN) getting underway in some regional areas of Australia, the inevitable squabbles over where transmission towers should and should not be built are in full swing.

The process calls for calm, consultation with councils and residents, and transparent information flow. Rural councils need to be involved with making sure people understand what is happening, and why it is happening.

However, it seems the Moorabool Council, west of Melbourne, has developed something of a double standard towards the construction of the towers.

“GORDON and Yendon residents are fighting plans to construct three large wireless internet towers, saying they will threaten people’s safety and ruin the rural aesthetics.”

“A Moorabool Council spokesman said the council had advised NBN Co to hold further consultation sessions.”

“”Telstra have been promising for a long time to put up a mobile phone tower in Blackwood,” Cr Griffin said. “It is a very serious situation because there is no (mobile phone) coverage there. So some people are very difficult to communicate with in case of fire.”"

“Cr Griffin said he urged the telecommunications company to not let financial considerations stand in the way.”

“”I call on Telstra to get on with it,” he said.”

It really seems like Moorabool Council are keen about, and are promoting the NBN in their municipality, but are demanding Telstra hurry up and build the mobile phone tower in Blackwood, yet they tell NBN Co to go away and do more work for Yendon, Lal Lal and Gordon.

Two services they want that require the erection of transmission towers, yet two different responses.

Will the tower in Blackwood not ruin “rural aesthetics”, while the towers in Yendon, Lal Lal and Gordon are doing that exact same “ruining”?

I’m all for improving mobile phone coverage, and improving bushfire safety. Similarly, I’m all for getting the placement of NBN wireless towers right.

But there really should not be a “picking and choosing” of council positions to suit what are really only slightly different technical and aesthetic arguments.

NBN Wireless Towers Will Not Kill You

Michael Wyres — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:52:15 +0000

With areas around the Ballarat region to become some of the first areas in Australia to receive NBN Co’s wireless solution, there has been a lot of hullabaloo about the erection of the towers to actually deliver the service.

I respect that people have the right to choose whether they have the towers on their land or not, but to go with the “they will give us cancer” angle is just incorrect.

Numerous studies – including those done by the World Health Organisation – have shown no conclusive evidence that wireless towers cause cancer.

“Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.”

“First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.”

“A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.”

“Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low — well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different than the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.”

“For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer.”

In fact, you are more likely to get cancer from UV sunlight. Apparently.

People want these services, but they don’t want the infrastructure that delivers them.

And there’s no evidence it is affecting them anyway.

RF Interference From HFC

Michael Wyres — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:48:23 +0000

I’ll start off by saying I am by no means an RF engineer, so I may be completely wrong about what I am about to write about. I am however, quite confident in my empirical observations over time.

I got into an interesting conversation about RF interference generated by HFC systems – (often touted as an “alternative” to the NBN) – with Gary Stark and Dan Warne on Twitter on Friday afternoon.

Gary raised the issue of signal leakage from HFC systems that interfere with terrestrial RF broadcasts – (such as radio, television, emergency communications, etc) – and the discussion led to the thoughts that any proliferation in the use of HFC for internet delivery – (as espoused by some) – would increase the problem, and possibly create others.

Gary highlighted the Bondi area of Sydney as being particularly RF congested. There are many competing frequencies in the area, that interference is a common occurrence.

This reminded me of my own observations around Geelong.

For example, have a listen to the interference caused to a terrestrial radio transmission as I drive past the TransACT headquarters – this was recorded on Friday afternoon:

Now – (and note I said earlier, I am no RF engineer, so I could quite easily have this ass-about, but stick with me for a bit) – that doesn’t seem good, does it?

Some people I am sure will say, “oh look, there is a radio tower and a mobile phone tower there too”. Well, those towers were in place before the HFC network was, and this interference did not occur in this location before the cable network went up.

I can also vouch for the fact that having worked in Geelong in a role that would see me drive all over the city at all times, similar interference occurs all over Geelong, particularly near splitters and boosters in this particular HFC network.

The Melbourne/Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, and West Gippsland broadcast areas – (for both radio and television) – have a considerable history of interfering with each other, and over the years there has been much juggling of spectrum.

So congested is the spectrum, that the advent of digital television created many headaches.

Metropolitan digital services for the Seven Network are broadcast on VHF channel 6, the same frequencies that were used for Nine Network-affiliated WIN Television from Ballarat since 1963 – which was moved to UHF channel 36.

Metropolitan Nine Network digital services are transmitted on VHF channel 8, conflicting with the Network Ten-affiliated signals originated by Southern Cross Ten from Bendigo and Gippsland. Similarly, metro Network Ten digital signals are broadcast on VHF channel 11, previously used by the ABC in Ballarat.

Melbourne’s 3AW and its sister station Magic1278 actually swapped frequencies some years ago to alleviate as much interference as possible from its 3AW signal – which moved from 1278AM to 693AM.

The ABC are trying to launch a local radio station in Geelong, but haven’t been able to find a suitable frequency so far, with the process now about five years old. A new ABC NewsRadio frequency in Ballarat and a community FM licence in Melbourne’s outer east regularly interfere with each other.

The ultimate point to make is that the RF spectrum is incredibly congested, in many areas. Not just Melbourne or Geelong or Bondi. It is a real headache for authorities in allocating frequencies for new services all over the country.

Locking the existing HFC networks into use for any “NBN-like” network does nothing to solve this problem. Putting more people on them may actually increase the problem.

HFC is also an analogue technology, not digital. It will also likely actually cost us more than switching to a primarily fibre-based network from the beginning.

HFC is still not the answer.

Facebook Ads: Does Anyone Check Them?

Michael Wyres — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:44:12 +0000

Like most people, I’ve always felt that many of the adverts alongside profiles in Facebook are undoubtedly dodgy.

Take these couple of “iPhone” ads I’ve noticed this week:

The first one boldly proclaims an “iPhone 4S” for only $8.45? Even if the price was correct – (lets be honest, it sounds like crap to me) – that’s clearly not an iPhone 4S. It looks suspiciously like a first generation iPhone. Misleading ad number one.

The second ad is also touting an iPhone 4S – (this time for $51.12) – but it is clearly an iPhone 3G or 3GS displayed.

And it’s red!

Red iPhones? Misleading ad number two.

Facebook should be taking responsibility for the advertising that is shown as part of their site experience – (they’ve had enough bad publicity for various privacy screw ups throughout its existence) – so someone should be checking them out before they go live.

Seriously, these ads just seem too dodgy to me.